Hot Topics:

Opinion: Guest Opinions

Elise Jones and Deb Gardner: GMO phase-out is faithful to Boulder County values

By Elise Jones and Deb Gardner

Posted:
04/30/2016 08:00:00 PM MDT

A woman driving a John Deere tractor in the parking lot of the Plaza Convention Center in Longmont in February. Farmers and others gathered to testify before county commissioners decided to phase out the use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) on agricultural land owned by Boulder County. (Matthew Jonas / Staff Photographer)

Recently, after extensive research, 11 hours of stakeholder meetings and an eight-hour public hearing, we reversed the 2011 policy that allowed the planting of genetically-modified organism (or GMO) corn and sugar beets on county-owned croplands, and directed staff to develop a phase-out plan that works with the farmers who lease these lands to transition to more sustainable alternatives. Given the intense community interest and divided opinion on this topic, we want to explain why.

Some argue transitioning away from GMOs is anti-science, given that many studies have shown no definitive public health risk. Let us be clear: Our decision was not based on the belief that all genetic engineering is in and of itself harmful. Indeed, in some cases, benefits, e.g., drought resistance, could outweigh potential risks.

At the heart of our decision was a key policy question: Should public lands be managed to achieve public benefits commensurate with the significant investment of public tax dollars that acquired those lands? Or should the county let private lessees farm our 16,000 acres of public croplands however they like?

We concluded that our taxpayer-owned agricultural open space does play a distinct role from private farmland and should be managed according to Boulder County's values, maximizing community benefit and the health of our land, water, wildlife and people. We are a recognized innovator in areas from clean energy to safety net services; Boulder County should similarly strive to be a national leader in sustainable agriculture. In our view, the current GMO cropping system does not achieve this high standard.

Advertisement

Our concerns are about supporting a cropping system involving seeds genetically engineered to partner with toxic pesticides. Counter to integrated pesticide management, which uses chemicals only as a last resort, these GMOs guarantee continued use of synthetic chemicals, particularly glyphosate.

Not only has glyphosate become the most widely used pesticide of all time, resulting in resistant "superweeds" and the use of more toxic alternatives, a growing chorus of scientists is raising concerns about its potential health impacts. Equally concerning is that most GMO seeds are pre-dipped in neonicotinoids, which have been implicated in the die-off of bees and other pollinators. What's more, ownership and development of new GMO seeds and their associated pesticides is controlled by a handful of large, multinational corporations.

Rather than investing county croplands and taxpayer dollars in a system that is counter to our values, we should be promoting alternatives that are healthier — for our lands, consumers, farmers, and climate.

Fortunately, there are many innovative opportunities to do this. An emerging topic at the COP21 climate talks was the potential for regenerative agriculture to sequester carbon and remove greenhouse gases (GHG) from the atmosphere. In Marin County, Calif., this concept is being tested through farming and composting practices that restore soil carbon, improve soil health and enhance crop and forage productivity. Locally, the Savory Institute and Nature Conservancy have improved financial and ecological productivity on Colorado cattle ranches using holistic management techniques.

Some argue GMO farming is environmentally superior because it enables "no-till" cultivation, which causes less GHG emissions and soil damage. But no-till has also been successfully piloted for organic farms by the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania, which found over time that organic systems match the yield of GMO cropping systems (and during droughts outperform them), while producing less GHGs, enhancing soil health and generating more profits.

As an epicenter for the natural foods industry and local food movement, Boulder County should expand its work with natural food companies, grocery stores, restaurants, schools and others to create new markets for open space farmers, ensuring their financial success and increasing access to local healthy food.

These are just some of the exciting opportunities we should pursue. But we can't get there overnight. Only 8 percent of county cropland (about 1,200 acres) is planted with GMOs in any year, affecting only nine of our 65 lessees. But we view all of our farmers as critical partners in the stewardship of our agricultural landscapes. Many lessees hail from families who have farmed for multiple generations and sold their farms to the county to create our agricultural open space program. We don't want to leave any farmer behind.

Consequently, we believe a multi-year transition is essential to phase out GMOs, prevent financial disruption to lessees, and pilot better alternatives. We are working with staff, farmers and agricultural experts now to develop this transition plan so Boulder County can truly become a national leader in sustainable agriculture.

The Boulder alt-country band gives its EPs names such as Death and Resurrection, and its songs bear the mark of hard truths and sin. But the punk energy behind the playing, and the sense that it's all in good fun, make it OK to dance to a song like "Death." Full Story